The High Court dismissed an appeal due to non-service of a copy on opposite counsel. The bench, finding the dismissal based on a wrong office report, set aside the dismissal, allowed condonation of delay, and restored the appeal at a cost of Rs.2,500/-.
Appeal restored to original number; degree along with costs imposed; condonation of delay granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:40627]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration No. 31/2014
All by caste Sirvi, R/o Nadol, Tehsil Desuri, Distt. Pali. Appellant No.2 minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Kamla.
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. V.R. Choudhary |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Lalit Parihar for |
| Mr. Sanjeev Johari,Sr. Advocate |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
24/11/2023
[2023:RJ-JD:40627]
[CRES-31/2014]
(2 of 3)
Further, it has been submitted that on the date when the per emptory order was passed, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants and hence, the order could not be complied with. 4. The restoration application is reported to be barred by 904 days.
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application with the submission that information of dismissal of the appeal was not conveyed to the appellants by counsel and hence, they were not aware of the same.
[2023:RJ-JD:40627]
[CRES-31/2014]
(3 of 3)
support of the application has been filed but copy of the application has not been given to the opposite counsel.
However, ignoring the said report, the office report was made on 19.05.2011 to the effect that the affidavit was not filed. It is also clear on record that on 11.05.2011 when the per emptory order was passed, none had appeared on behalf of appellants.
Meaning thereby, the only defect in the appeal was that copy of the application for substituted service of respondent No.2 was not supplied to opposite counsel.
However, looking to the long period of delay, the same is allowed at the cost of Rs.2,500/-. The cost be deposited with the Litigant Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from now. 10. Let the appeal be restored to its original number.
(REKHA BORANA),J
95-KashishS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the appeal made on the basis of an incorrect office report deserves to be set aside.
Whether the delay in filing the restoration application should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kamla W/o Late Shri Heera Ram
Manisha S/o Late Heera Ram
Dilawar Khan S/o Rehnat Khan
National Insurance Company Limited
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
